Quick Fire Questions (A Place to Ask and Answer)

[alchemist]

The Evangelists are the 4 dudes who wrote the four eponymous books of the New Testament. As for the bible as a whole, it's so diverse that it appears unlikely one term fits all. I may be wrong.

 

[Ursa major]

Hex: Try your local Biblio 'tec....




(This isn't anything to do with the September 75-word challenge, is it?)

 

[Hex]

(This isn't anything to do with the September 75-word challenge, is it?)

Yes -- the challenge is to explain the workings of a ski-jump drive in the style of St Peter's epistle to the Ephesians.

(I've put the challenge up. I hope I spelled things like "seventy" and "writing" correctly -- I've had a little to drink. If I've made any hideous mistakes I'm sure you won't mock me too mercilessly)

 

[Ursa major]

Yes -- the challenge is to explain the workings of a ski-jump drive in the style of St Peter's epistle to the Ephesians.

That's far too hard, Hex: we usually have seventy-five words at our disposal, but you'd be forcing us to use a single letter....

​

 

[Culhwch]

Here's a quick-fire question that's related to an idea that has been kicking around in my head lately. Actually, it might not be so quick-fire, but we'll see...

Would a thirteen/fourteen year old boy, the son of an officer in the British army, typically be attending (a school somewhat as we know them) in 19th century London?

 

[Pyan]

I think you'd have to narrow down "19th century" a bit, Cul - at the beginning of it, you could buy a commission in a good regiment, and it was a favourite place for a younger son of the aristocracy - but at the other end of the century, the army was much more of of a meritocracy, with the purchase of commissions being abolished in 1871.

So, an officer's son in the first half of the century would probably have gone to a public school (which means something completely different in the UK to anywhere else in the world), such as Eton, Harrow or Winchester, as his family would have been landed gentry, and well off - toward the end of the period, he would been a lot more likely to have gone to a state school.

But it also depends on the rank of your officer - there was an unwritten, but rigid rule in the Army about marrying:

"A Subaltern may not marry, Captains might marry, Majors should marry, but Colonels must marry."


(there are cases of subalterns being forced to resign from a crack cavalry regiment for marrying)

-so your officer must be of a sufficiently high rank, and have been so for at least the son's age, to to have a child old enough to go to school at all, if that makes sense...

Hope this helps!

(my links, not skim-links, BTW)

 

[The Judge]

And if you're going down the public school route, Cul, be aware that there are gradations between them, and a distinct hierarchy (in their own minds if in no one else's), so family background will also play a part as to which of the schools a boy would attend. The higher up the social class, the more likely you're looking at Eton/Harrow because that's where the boy's father/grandfather etc would have gone.

If you're using a real regiment I'd suggest you have a look at real life officers and see where their sons were educated and that might give you a better feel. (If it's of any help one of my ancestors was an army officer in the early 19th century, and I have bit of info about him and his sons which I'm happy to look out for you -- though he wasn't typical as his father was only a tanner and he rose largely by achievement.)

 

[Christopher Lee]

Its true that an immortal robot banging randomly away on a typewriter with infinite supply will eventually reproduce the entire works of shakespeare in numerical order perfectly. This is at any more or less constant interval, such as 1-5 characters per second (or per millennium, it doesnt matter as long as its constant. BUT--what if the robot decreased its character production exponentially over time? An example--starting off at 20 cpm the first minute, 10 cpm the second, 5 the 3rd, and so on, halving itself every minute.

It would get to where it would take billeniums before even one letter was produced, but production would still be moving forward, and, thus, would still *eventually* produce said works. There's the problem. The only way for said robot to succeed would be for the robot to continue working infinitely, and because infinity has no beginning or end, would the very fact that the robot 'began' automatically rule out any chances of ever succeeding? Or, if he kept working infinitely, would his goal be reached?

 

[Hilarious Joke]

It could get lucky and get it straight away.

 

[alchemist]

Sorry to inject a note of realism, but the universe will last for ever (heat death, and all that), so unless the robot does get lucky (as HJ says), it probably won't complete Hamlet, never mind the lot. The exponential reduction in character production only reinforces that.

If it could do it for an infinite period of time, it probably still would manage to complete Shakespeare's works, even with the slowing output.

 

[Vertigo]

A quick question. Are there any rules/guidelines on using characters first or last names? I have noticed in several books that I've read recently that some of the characters are always referred to by their last names in the text (first maybe in dialogue) whilst others in the same book are referred to by their first name. Two authors that spring to mind doing this are Neal Asher and John Scalzi. In the most recent Scalzi book I read he always uses the last name of the main character and the first name of the second most important character.

Is this really just a case of what feels best or does it have some subconscious impact on the average reader? Does using the last name tend to present that character as a bit remote/formal and using the first name present them as more intimate/informal?

 

[The Judge]

A quick question. Are there any rules/guidelines on using characters first or last names?

Is this really just a case of what feels best or does it have some subconscious impact on the average reader? Does using the last name tend to present that character as a bit remote/formal and using the first name present them as more intimate/informal?

To my mind: no, yes (both -- they're not antithetical) and yes.

If it's of any help, in my space opera all but two characters are referred to in the narrative by their surnames even though their first names may be used in dialogue -- but they are a semi-military police force and to my mind that suits them best. The two exceptions are: a child of 12 who is known by her first name, since using her surname would be too harsh (and confusing, as her father is also a character), and the lead female who is usually known by her title (the Judge, as it so happens...), sometimes by her given name and very occasionally by a pet name depending on the POV character and exactly how close in POV I am.

Contrariwise, in my current WIP which is a fantasy I'm using mostly first names, but also titles and at least one surname, largely depending on how most people address the specific characters.

 

[Ursa major]

A quick question. Are there any rules/guidelines on using characters first or last names? I have noticed in several books that I've read recently that some of the characters are always referred to by their last names in the text (first maybe in dialogue) whilst others in the same book are referred to by their first name. Two authors that spring to mind doing this are Neal Asher and John Scalzi. In the most recent Scalzi book I read he always uses the last name of the main character and the first name of the second most important character.

I'm sure this was touched upon in a relatively recent thread. (I recall posting - or intending to post - in that thread; sad to say, I can't remember the thread title.)

I use the first name of my main character, a nickname (which is simply the first syllable of his surname) for the second character, and the surnames of the third and fourth. (My main character is female and the other three mentioned above are male; I don't think gender drove my choices, but I'm no psychologist.)




I too would like to know the answer to this:

Is this really just a case of what feels best or does it have some subconscious impact on the average reader? Does using the last name tend to present that character as a bit remote/formal and using the first name present them as more intimate/informal?

 

[The Judge]

You did post, Ursa. Slightly different topic, as it involved changing the names to reflect different POVs -- http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/531645-characters-referred-to-differently-in-changing-povs.html


And I'm actually willing to bet that some unconscious gender bias did creep in with the female being the only one to be known by her first name, since it effectively acts to "soften" her image.

 

[Vertigo]

Thanks for that and I thought maybe the use of first name would act to "soften" the image of a character. In the Scalzi book the main character is a tough spy sort and he is referred to using last name and the second major character is a woman caught up in it all with no experience at all in anything remotely military and she is referred to by her first name so that sort of makes sense.

I did look for any similar threads but searching on words like name, first and last even through Google did not produce very useful results!

 

[The Judge]

Again, I'm willing to bet that it's the fact the second character is a woman which makes a large difference. If that second character were male and adult, no matter how inexperienced, he would be less likely to be referred to by his first name. As a society we're still uncomfortable with women in some roles, lest they become too masculine, so we seek to remind ourselves of their non-maleness by using their first names, which makes them less threatening. Conversely, when we need to them to be masculine we are more likely to give them surnames only -- cf in Alien the lead character is known as Ripley, not as Ellen.

I'm scrupulous in calling my female cops by their surname, because they're part of the same military-type ethos, but almost certainly if I had a civilian character I'd find it harder to do -- and I'm actively aware of the gender bias.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But aside from all of the above, I think that putting readers on a first name basis with a character does establish a certain degree of intimacy, which in turn can lead to a greater bond of sympathy.

 

[Vertigo]

It's an interesting dilemma really. I had never thought something so apparently trivial could actually be so significant. It seems like when you are starting a story you must not only decide what to call your characters (something I find very difficult anyway - they just never sound quite right!) but also how they should be addressed in different contexts and being aware what effect that might have on the readers. Interesting

 

[Ursa major]

And don't forget that how a character may want to be addressed, and which of their names should be used by whom, may not match what those "whoms" actually use**. (This is a problem not only associated with fiction: some people find the use of their first name by strangers presumptuous, if not outright rude.)








** - And that's without considering what names the "whoms" use behind the character's back.

 

[Vertigo]

I believe the Japanese only use first names within family and very intimate friends and in fact I think one is supposed to ask permission to use their first name.